"As they passed the rows of houses they saw through the open doors that men were sweeping and dusting and washing dishes, while the women sat around in groups, gossiping and laughing.
"What has happened?" the Scarecrow asked a sad-looking man with a bushy beard, who wore an apron and was wheeling a baby-carriage along the sidewalk.
"Why, we've had a revolution, your Majesty -- as you ought to know very well," replied the man; "and since you went away the women have been running things to suit themselves. I'm glad you have decided to come back and restore order, for doing housework and minding the children is wearing out the strength of every man in the Emerald City."
"Hm!" said the Scarecrow, thoughtfully. "If it is such hard work as you say, how did the women manage it so easily?"
"I really do not know," replied the man, with a deep sigh. "Perhaps the women are made of cast-iron.""
- L. Frank Baum, "The Land of Oz"
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Rob writes an insightful post at the Spyglass, excerpted below [emphasis mine]:
For all the biblical language used in Republican rhetoric, and for all the identification of American evangelicals with the Republican Party, there’s really very little in the way of meaningful theological engagement with much of the party platform. Some issues, certainly, are grounded in biblical and theological statements (most notably abortion), but the argument at these points tends to be issue-specific, not part of any coherent whole with the rest of the platform; on issues such as tax policy or immigration policy, there has been a strong tendency among evangelical Republicans to baptize conservative positions as the properly Christian thing to believe without really evaluating them.
This set the stage for the Obama backlash among a certain subset of self-identified evangelicals in the 2008 election. He didn’t actually gain many evangelical votes, but the ones he did attract tended to be very loud; he also managed to appear sufficiently unthreatening that many other evangelicals felt it safe to indulge their displeasure with John McCain and stay home instead of voting. Among both groups, there was the sense that the Republican Party has been happy in years past to pay lip service to evangelical concerns in order to raise money and turnout, but has done little or nothing to actually address those concerns in a meaningful way; party leaders haven’t taken voters’ faith seriously, but have only seen it as something to be used and manipulated to their own ends. This sense has been growing stronger for some time, and in 2006 and 2008, it manifested in voter defections that returned the Democratic Party to power.
In my view, that sense is entirely fair, and entirely unsurprising. The thing about theologized politics is that it essentially amounts to the subversion of faith for political ends, leaving the political platform—and party—in the dominant position; religious folk are welcomed at the fundraising counter and the volunteer meeting, but when it comes to the actual making of policy we’re expected to just shut up and soldier. This is what evangelicals found with the GOP—which is why so many of us are backing away from the party, even if we’re just as conservative as we ever were (or maybe especially so, since the party definitely isn’t)—and it’s what those who bought the rhetoric and voted for the candidate of Hopeychangeyness are now finding with the Democrats as well. It is, after all, in the nature of political parties to use whatever they can with as little return commitment as they can; anything freely offered will be freely taken, with no sense of reciprocal obligation.
As a matter both of faithful Christian discipleship and of intelligent political engagement, then—and make no mistake about it, the former requires the latter—the critical need at this time is for Christians in America to break out of this pattern and assert a new model for the interaction between faith and politics; and to do that, we must begin with ourselves. We must begin, as I wrote last time,to break ourselves of the habit of using the language of Christian faith to support what we have already decided we believe, and to teach ourselves instead to use our faith to critique our politics, and ultimately to rebuild our political convictions on the ground of our faith.And on that ground and no other we must assert ourselves in the political life of this nation, not as docile sheep to be shorn for the advancement of the agendas and ambitions of politicians and parties, but as independent agents for the glory of God and the advancement of the work of his kingdom.
Trackbacks:
Trackback URL: http://thinklings.org/bloo.trackback.php/5422.
Comments on "Faith and Politics":
2. Wickle
- 05/24/2009 10:05 pm CDT
This is why I left the Republican Party in 1995! I'm glad that more and more Christians are catching on, to be perfectly honest.
Actual Bible-believing Christians aren't respected by the Republican leadership, we've been politically convenient. To help out, we've bent on a number of issues to fit in better with the Secular Right at their party.
3. Bill
- 05/24/2009 10:08 pm CDT
Thanks Wickle
To be clear, I'm not a Democrat either. I'm even more disgusted with them than I am with Republicans.
I'm not sure either party fits with what Christians are supposed to believe (I realize that there are a number of Christians who disagree with that, on both sides of the aisle).
4. The Ancient Mariner
- 05/24/2009 10:38 pm CDT
Thanks, Bill, for the link and the quote; much appreciated. I don't think either party really fits, but you're never going to find a viable one that does; you just have to do the best you can. I'll say this: I would never vote for a pro-choice Republican. There would simply be no point.
5. Bob Sacamento
- 05/25/2009 8:47 am CDT
there has been a strong tendency among evangelical Republicans to baptize conservative positions as the properly Christian thing to believe without really evaluating them.
OK, I'm dense. What are some examples? (I reject pro-life as an example. That was something imported into the GOP by Catholics and evangelicals.)
he also managed to appear sufficiently unthreatening that many other evangelicals felt it safe to indulge their displeasure ... and stay home instead of voting.
My understanding here is not that Obama looked unthreatening, but that McCain just didn't look compellingly different from Obama to these folks. Anybody know more than me?
We must begin ... to break ourselves of the habit of using the language of Christian faith to support what we have already decided we believe, and to teach ourselves instead to use our faith to critique our politics ...."
The things is 1) anyone of any polticial persuasion could make this statement and 2) most evangelicals thought they were doing just this all along. This statement just isn't all that helpful without some at least vague outline of what this new politics would look like.
I don't know. I agree with this article, but only in the sense that I agree that "good is better than bad." I mean, it sounds good at first but, on a second reading, it seems to be not much more than a fairly eloquent statement of several tautologies. I don't know.
Anyway, as long as the GOP is the only real home for pro-life social conservatives in our country's politics, it's the party for me. If some realistic, better option comes along, I'll jump ship in a second. Let me know if you know what that is.
6. Bill
- 05/25/2009 8:48 am CDT
I would never vote for a pro-choice Republican. There would simply be no point.
True dat.
And we can expect a lot more of them. The "lesson" of the 2008 election that many in the Republican party have gleaned is that they need to be more like Democrats. . . brilliant.
7. Andrew
- 05/25/2009 9:45 am CDT
I'm having trouble reconciling my Christianity with any strong political feelings. I'm pro-life, but I think I would probably be pro-life even if I wasn't a Christian. On the other hand, my Christianity has made me far less likely to support war and strongly anti-"enhanced interrogation". Neither position fits with the modern GOP.
The fact that I can't expect governments run by humans to act based on morality rather than the instinct of self-exaltation has made it really hard for me to support any political candidate or discern any real difference between the parties. The Christian vote? I've begun to wonder if there's any such thing.
8. The Ancient Mariner
- 05/25/2009 8:57 pm CDT
Bob, as a practical matter, 90+% of the time, the Republican candidate looks better to me, and so I vote Republican. It's more a question of how we relate to political parties vs. pretending that there's a better option out there now as things stand. As I say, though, I'll never vote for a pro-choice Republican, because that pretty much defeats the point.
As for examples, if you've never heard people declare that Jesus believes in lower taxes, or that free trade is supported by Solomon buying cedar from Hiram of Lebanon, you're better off than I am. If you've never heard people equate serving in the US military with serving God, well, you haven't spent any time in my congregation, for one thing; and for another, you've probably never read the American Patriot's Bible. I have, a little, since my wife reviewed it.
My understanding here is not that Obama looked unthreatening, but that McCain just didn't look compellingly different from Obama to these folks.
To some extent, it's the same thing: Obama looked sufficiently unthreatening that a lot of folks didn't see any real difference between him and McCain. A lot of that was that they believed that he was and would be friendlier to evangelicals than past Democratic candidates. Maybe you didn't hear people saying that, but I certainly did.
1) anyone of any political persuasion could make this statement
True.
2) most evangelicals thought they were doing just this all along
I know very few evangelicals whose theological reflection on their political views goes very much beyond prooftexting and listening to politically-minded preachers like D. James Kennedy, and vanishingly few who critique their political beliefs on the basis of their theological beliefs. Your experience, of course, may be different.
This statement just isn't all that helpful without some at least vague outline of what this new politics would look like.
That would be the project, wouldn't it? Seriously, that's what I'm working on, but it's no small thing.
Andrew, it's a matter of trying to sort out the best available option. Neither party is perfect, but that doesn't mean the differences between their imperfections aren't profound, nor does it necessarily mean that they are equally bad.
And more than that, of course, political involvement goes beyond just voting for candidates or supporting one party over the other; sometimes it means standing in the space between the parties and agitating both of them.
9. Bob Sacamento
- 05/26/2009 8:19 am CDT
A.M.,
Hmmm, didn't realize the source of this quote. I figured it came from NRO or something like that. If I had known it was from a regular commenter in this site, I would have made my points with a less combative tone. Sorry. Anyway, I share some major frustration with the GOP myself. But, like I said in my earlier comment, give me a realistic social conservative alternative. Please. :) Until then, it's the only political home I have.
10. The Ancient Mariner
- 05/26/2009 2:43 pm CDT
Hey, I don't mind--after all, I can respond. :) In any case, I agree that the GOP is the only reasonable pro-life option; the point is rather more that Christians of all stripes have been too willing to be co-opted and simply swallow the party platform whole (or mostly). I'm not advocating launching a third party, because under our system, either the third party fails or it forces the death of one of the other two; either way, you wind up back at two viable parties. I am, however, advocating changing the ways in which we relate to the parties we have.
11. Karl
- 05/26/2009 3:22 pm CDT
About a decade ago, I really appreciated Ron Sider's writing on this issue - the dissatisfaction with both parties and the wistful desire for a third option. While we were members of Evangelicals for Social Action, we received its Prism magazine, of which Sider was the editor. His editorials and articles drew ire from Christians on both sides of the political aisle because he was willing to call both parties to task - democrats on issues of abortion and sexual morality, and republicans on issues of greed, poverty and the environment. I'm guessing that most of us who read here regularly would be more politically conservative than Sider on many of those issues, but I appreciated his even handedness.
I'm not sure where Sider stands currently, but my impression has been that he remained less willing than Campolo or Wallis to adopt wholesale the democratic party - one reason that he has been marginalized compared to those two. He vocally disagrees with too much of the democratic platform to be a darling to the left, and is too nuanced to make a good "here's an evangelical Christian who is a democrat" sound bite for the media.
Leave a Comment:
"Republican Party has been happy in to pay lip service to evangelical concerns in order to raise money and turnout, but has done nothing to actually address those concerns; party leaders haven’t taken voters’ faith seriously, but have only seen it as something to be manipulated to their own ends"
Yep.
Question is: on whom is the joke?
a) Christians, who long ago should have found a politically viable way to make their concerns binding if echoed by politicos?
b) non Christian conservatives, whose whole house of cards fell in?
c) Obama's coterie, who, after all, will suffer right along with everyone else, no matter their denying that result comes from the policies that Obama (and before him, Bush) imposed?
Don't tell me God has no sense of humor. Ps 2's laughter comes to mind.